The MailOnline carried a piece titled, ‘Death of the work ethic: With Labour at war over benefits cuts, ONE IN FOUR young people consider quitting workforce entirely.’

‘… one in ten workers is said to be actively considering leaving the workforce, equivalent to 4.4million Britons. This rises to a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds, who are 40 per cent more likely than older generations to give poor mental health as a reason for quitting work.

A third of those classed as ‘economically inactive’ are ‘not interested’ in returning to jobs – with 37 per cent saying low ‘self-esteem and confidence’ acts as a barrier, a report from accounting firm PwC reveals. It concludes that considering leaving work has ‘gone mainstream’.

The nub of the piece is the Labour government’s intention to cut welfare payments.’

As the Socialist Standard article below makes explicit, ‘Governments are elected to run capitalism. They don’t like paying “benefit” to people who could be employed turning capital investment into profit. Men and women who receive “benefit” (whether unemployment, sickness, invalidity, or whatever) are a drain on the profit system.’

Knowledge of socialism would reinforce their desire not to be burdened by useless unnecessary work that benefits only the capitalist class and not the wider society.

For involvement in the production of quality services and goods for free use and access by all they, like everyone, needs socialism. Not a guarantee but we are willing to lay a serious bet that the happiness engendered by doing so would see personal satisfaction from living in a socialist society would increase dramatically.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14505435/Labour-benefits-cuts-ONE-FOUR-young-people-quitting-workforce.html

From the Socialist Standard October 1997.

‘Governments are elected to run capitalism. They don’t like paying “benefit” to people who could be employed turning capital investment into profit. Men and women who receive “benefit” (whether unemployment, sickness, invalidity, or whatever) are a drain on the profit system. Never mind that the owners of the means of wealth production are themselves a drain on the rest of us who do all the world’s useful work.

To save money for the taxpayer the previous government introduced a test to weed out what it called benefit cheats. According to an unpublished report quoted in the Big Issue (2-8 June), 198,500 out of 785,000 people examined were denied benefit between April 1995 and September 1996. Many claimants failed the “all work” test.

In capitalism there are three kinds of work, only one of which will be needed in socialism. First there is work that is harmful to those who do it or against whom it is done. Second there is work that is “useful” to the profit system but useless in any human need sense. And third there is work that has a purpose, whose result does meet some human need.

There are, unfortunately, plenty of examples today of the first kind of work. There is the legally authorised killing and injuring of “the enemy” by members of the armed forces and the whole paraphernalia of occupations and “enterprises” which have violence as their end product or reason for existence: the arms manufacturers, the arms dealers, the plotters and planners, the spies and counter-spies, the propagandists, the war correspondents, and so on. Apart from a few psychopaths drawn to such destructive occupations, the people involved are mostly ordinary, respectable citizens, honest, law-abiding, kind to children and animals. It is the profit system, organised within potentially if not actually hostile nation-states, that requires such work to be done.

Besides work that is harmful to others, there is work that causes harm to those who engage in it. Coal-mining is a greatly reduced industry in Britain, but many miners in other countries still have to risk their lives and their health in dangerous working environments. Ironically, some work undertaken by members of the ruling class can be harmful to them if indulged in excessively. The Evening Standard (25 June) reported that the Duke of Westminster, with his estimate £1.65 billion mega-fortune, had been ordered by his doctors to take three months off from “running his business affairs and his work for 160 charities”. Of course the big difference between the Duke and the millions of real workers is that they have to find an employer or rely on state charity, whereas he can choose whether or not to work shuffling money around.

The third kind of work is that which is really useful, producing goods or services which people actually need: producing and distributing food, making clothes and furniture, building and repairing homes, schools and hospitals, teaching, healing the sick, and so on. It is difficult to estimate what proportion of all employment in capitalism is useful—work that would still be done in a socialist world. A generous estimate would be half, but the true figure may be 20 percent or less. In our pamphlet Socialism as a Practical Alternative we discuss how we can eliminate the waste of capitalism and choose productive methods appropriate to socialism.

People who have to do harmful or useless work for a living are encouraged to believe that they have no choice in the “real world”, dominated by the system that is endorsed by the voters at periodic elections. A first step towards socialism is to stop believing that this capitalist “real world” is inevitable. It’s a good idea to make the best of any job you have to work at, whether its end-product or service is worthy or worthless. But it’s not a good idea to pretend that a “nothing” job—doing it only in the service of capital—is any better than it is.

Some years ago— 1968 to be precise— Ronald Fraser edited a book on Work: Twenty Personal Accounts. The accounts make fascinating reading, many of them offering a powerful indictment of the waste of life involved in capitalist employment. Take the night-watchman, for example. He describes his job as “guarding the sleep of capital”. Producing nothing, this labour exists to make nothing happen, its aim is emptiness. The night-watchman has the sensation of being turned into an object, a labouring material thing. Demanding no part of himself, the job in fact demands everything, on the lowest possible level.

Studs Terkel, an American writer, is best known for his book on Working, subtitled “people talk about what they do all day and how they feel about what they do”. Listen to the automobile salesman: “The public thinks the automobile salesman is a rat. Some of the customers arc the real animals . . . They don’t have to be animals. It’s the whole system that makes ’em animals”.

The productive potential of modern industry is immense, and so is its potentiality for human liberation. In a rationally and humanly organised socialist world it could be used not only to meet basic and imaginative human needs but also to create more humane and satisfying conditions of work.

Capitalist employment offers much work that is at best useless and time-wasting and at worst harmful and destructive. The profit system treats the working abilities of men and women as commodities useful only to create marketable goods and services. It pays for workers’ skills, but everything also they are or have or want is subordinated to their “efficient” employment. It wastes them in unemployment—when no profit can be seen from employing them—and it wastes them in much of what they have to do only in the service of capital.

There is. however, an alternative. Today we have to be employed or unemployed, but tomorrow—or at least as soon as we can dissuade our fellow workers from continuing to support capitalism—we can have truly human work. As Ray Pahl put it in his book On Work: “the value system that encourages competition or greed at the expense of collaboration and altruism may not ultimately succeed”.[

Stan Parker

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-work-test-1997.html

Two American economists discuss whether capitalism is crumbling

Their idea as to what socialism really is is erroneous but they they do make some interesting points. Twenty six minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3qLvgyRSKc

HOW REALISTIC MUST THE SOCIALIST MODEL BE TO ACHIEVE SUPPORT FOR IT? (ZOOM)

‘Born on 5 May 1818, Karl Marx died 14th March 1883 after a long illness, his end undoubtedly being hastened by the death of his wife in 1881 and his favourite daughter, Jenny, in 1882. Marx devoted the best years of his life in the struggle for socialism and the fruits of his labours are a legacy of inestimable value to the working class. There were less than a dozen mourners for his funeral at Highgate Cemetery. You can tell capitalism is in trouble when people start talking about capitalism – people become aware of capitalism in crisis, just as an illness or injury makes you newly aware of the body you always took for granted. Thanks to the crisis, people all around the world are talking about capitalism again. To get a proper understanding of the phenomenon of recessions you have to look back to someone the press and TV tell us has been discredited and whose influence in the world is supposed to have been wholly bad – Marx. It was Marx who developed a real understanding of how the capitalist system operates and why it constantly fails to live up to the hopes of the politicians who preside over it.

For years Marx’s work was treated either by a conspiracy of silence or under ceaseless attack by politicians and academics who defended capitalism. These days it is different. In 1999 Karl Marx was voted the “Greatest Thinker of the Millennium” in a BBC online poll. Then in 2005 he was voted the “Greatest Philosopher” in another BBC poll. Karl Marx, the one-time almost unknown exile, the patient digger for economic facts in the British Museum Library, is now a “world figure.” No man of his generation could claim so many alleged followers, so many bitter enemies, as Marx, if he were alive to-day. Often a lot of nonsense is talked about Karl Marx, most of it from people who have never read him. But nowadays practically every bookshop will have the works of Marx for sale. These days it is fashionable to write long, confusing, dull books about Marx. Practically every place of higher education will have a course on some aspect of Marxism. Thanks to these modern Marxist scholars we have not just one Marx but many: Hegelian Marx, Young Marx, Mature Marx. Karl Marx was a “man of science” (his studies of capitalism) and a revolutionary who saw the working class having the “historical”, mission to abolish capitalism and to take humanity on to socialism.

Marx wasn’t just a scholar, but an activist and commentator on the world he often painfully lived in. No man’s ideas have suffered more at the hands of his self-claimed disciples. Even in Marx’s own time his views were distorted and misrepresented by would-be friends as well as opponents, so that Marx himself was driven to declare that he “was no Marxist.” Despite the widespread myth that he was discredited by the events of the 20th Century and given the gross distortions and misrepresentations of Marx’s ideas from Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and Maoism, Marx’s ideas are in fact as relevant as ever today. Far from discrediting Marx, the events have vindicated him. Not only would Marx not have supported the Eastern European regimes, but he would have welcomed their downfall.

But what did Karl Marx actually have to say? Was he in favour of dictatorship? Did he think that the state should impose dull uniformity, rigid regimentation and boring work on its citizens? Did he think that human nature and talents should be suppressed in the name of equality and altruism and for the benefit of a collectivity? No. In fact, Karl Marx’s driving passion his whole life was the free development of the individual. Karl Marx was not opposed to the capitalist ideas of choice, liberty and individual freedom. He supported the ideas, but opposed the society that prevented them becoming a reality. He wanted to be able “to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic”.

Marx had come to socialism via German philosophy becoming a socialist sometime in the winter of 1843-4 and only later interested himself in economics. Marx comments that during the course of his studies he reached the conclusion that the explanation of social development was not to be found merely in the realm of ideas but rather in the material conditions of life, and that a proper understanding of capitalism is to be found in economics. Capital, written in the 1850s and 60s, was in fact not published till 1867.

Marx became a socialist out of a moral objection to what money and the state were doing to human dignity, before he began his scientific study of capitalism and the working class. Marx stood for a society without class conflict, without State power and without monetary fetishism and that the abolition of capitalism is not mechanically inevitable, but can only come about as a result of a conscious choice by the working class; if they don’t make this choice then capitalism will continue. Marx held that the working class should take political action to end politics and the state and that one of the forms this could take was democratic electoral action. Marx held that socialism could not be established unless a majority of workers had come to want and understand it.



“For the ultimate triumph of the ideas set forth in the Manifesto Marx relied solely and exclusively on the intellectual development of the working class, as it necessarily had to ensue from united action and discussion.” – Engels’ Preface to the 1890 German edition of the Communist Manifesto

Marx analysed the social and economic system he lived under in methodical detail by starting from the very categories used by the bourgeois economists themselves: the commodity, the exchange of commodities and then, most important, the buying and selling of labour power, which is at the core of the system of wage-slavery, a system we still live under in 2013 throughout the world.

Marx solved the paradox of the origin of profit created in the production process. He did so by distinguishing labour from labour power. The latter is the worker’s ability to work for a given number of days, whereas simple labour is the work performed during this time. If you pay someone a wage of £500 per week, that is what they need to live on and carry on being fit for work. You have bought their labour power for the week. But they will be able to generate £500’s worth of value well before the week is over, and the surplus belongs not to them but to the employer. The basis of life under capitalism is the workers’ sale of labour power to the employers, although this is not generally accepted as a true description of the world we live in. Marx, in a long, closely-reasoned analysis, has shown that this surplus is provided by the unpaid labour-power of the workers. Put into simple terms, this means that the wages of the worker are always less than the value of the articles he produces in the time covered by those wages. This is fully admitted in all business transactions, as no employer will engage a worker unless he can make the engagement “pay”—that is, unless he obtains a profit as a result of employing that worker.

Marx also correctly outlined:

1) the boom-slump cycle endemic to capitalism and how no government intervention—however benign—would be able to prevent it;



2) how the market economy would eventually spread its tentacles into every aspect of human life, conquering the entire planet in the process;



3) how an excess issue by governments of paper currency beyond that required by additional value production is the real cause of inflation;



4) class division and the modern development of a world economy where the division between the richest and the poorest is the widest in human history;



5) the growth of a colossal credit-based financial apparatus that, as time goes on, becomes increasingly isolated from the realities of the wealth production process which it depends.



The body of thought known as ‘Marxism’ comprises the labour theory of value, the materialist theory of history and the political theory of the class struggle. These are tools of analysis, which have been further developed and modified by socialists, to explain how the working class are exploited under capitalism and how world socialism will be the emancipation of our class. The validity of Marx’s theories is independent of Marx the man. Nonetheless, criticisms of Marx have been made because of the misinterpretations and distortions of Marxism that have occurred in the twentieth century. Marxism is not a dogma, not a record of the sayings and doings of Karl Marx to be carefully preserved and uncritically applied whatever the circumstances.

Marxism is a method of assessing what, at any particular time, is in the best interest of the working class and should be done to hasten the establishment of socialism. Marx’s political activity to further the cause of Socialism was shaped by the conditions of his time. Marx was politically active in an age when capitalism had yet to become the dominant world system, economically or politically. This decisively shaped his political tactics. Since he believed that capitalism paved the way for Socialism and that it still had part of this work to do, he advocated that, in this circumstance, socialists ought to work not only for Socialism but also for the progress of capitalism at the expense of reactionary political and social forms. This involved Marx in supporting campaigns to establish political democracy or which he felt would have the effect of stabilizing or protecting it. So we find him supporting independence for Ireland in order to weaken the power of the English landed aristocracy, who were an obstacle to the development of political democracy in Britain, and Polish independence in order to set up a buffer state between Tsarist Russia and the rest of Europe so as to give political democracy a chance to develop there. Marx supported the establishment of centralized States in Germany and Italy as he felt this would allow a more rapid capitalist development in these countries; and he supported the North in the American Civil War since he felt that a victory for the slave-owning South would slow down the development of capitalism in America. In the circumstances of the time it seemed logical to Marx that he should accept that for the moment the workers’ interests coincided with those of the bourgeois democrats, until such time as the absolutist regimes had been overthrown, and should then continue their struggle against the new bourgeois regimes. It was assumed that “the bourgeois democratic governments” could be placed in the situation of immediately losing “all backing among workers” (Marx’s address to the Communist League, 1850).

These policies made certain sense at a time when capitalism had not yet fully created the material basis for Socialism as a means of hastening this. But once capitalism had done this then they became outdated and reactionary. In these changed circumstances, an application of the Marxist method showed that socialists need no longer help capitalism prepare the way for socialism — it now has accomplished this and so has become a completely reactionary social system—but should rather concentrate exclusively on encouraging the growth of socialist consciousness and organization amongst the working class.

The best tribute to Marx is to recognise what is permanent in his work and put aside that which was dictated by temporary circumstances of the time in which he wrote. Marx is beginning to once more figure in the discussion within the protest movements and hopefully will bring some grounding to this confusing diversity of protesters; the conscious recognition in this movement of the international nature of our adversary, capitalism and the awareness of the necessity of a global action against it.’

https://soymb.com/search?q=Marx+tribute

‘When Karl Marx arrived at the Pearly Gates, St Peter had a problem: Marx was listed in the Big Book. St Peter gave God a quick call to explain that Marx had turned up and what he should do about it.



”Marx!” said God “How did he get on the list. He’s been bad-mouthing me for years. ‘Opium of the masses’ indeed! Give Old Nick down below a call and see if he’ll take him, he owes me a favour or two.”



St Peter dutifully rang Satan. ”Yeah, go on, we’ll take him.” replied Satan ”Don’t know how he didn’t get sent here in the first place given all the trouble he’s caused.”



So Marx was sent to Hell.



Two weeks later, Satan rang God. ”See that Marx, its really not working out. All the demons are out on strike, there’s protests and demonstrations everyday with Marx keep urging people to cast off their chains. He’s causing absolute chaos. He was on your list so you need to take him back.”



Eventually God reluctantly agreed that Marx could be admitted to Heaven after all.



After a couple of weeks went by and Satan rang God to see whether everything was working out, but an angel answered the phone. “Hey, Gabriel”, said Satan “can I speak to your boss?”



”Boss?” said the angel



”Yeah, you know, God” said Satan, impatiently



“Oh, him! Ah, no, not any more”, replied Gabriel “No bosses here, we’re all comrades now!”’

‘When Karl Marx arrived at the Pearly Gates, St Peter had a problem: Marx was listed in the Big Book. St Peter gave God a quick call to explain that Marx had turned up and what he should do about it.



”Marx!” said God “How did he get on the list. He’s been bad-mouthing me for years. ‘Opium of the masses’ indeed! Give Old Nick down below a call and see if he’ll take him, he owes me a favour or two.”



St Peter dutifully rang Satan. ”Yeah, go on, we’ll take him.” replied Satan ”Don’t know how he didn’t get sent here in the first place given all the trouble he’s caused.”



So Marx was sent to Hell.



Two weeks later, Satan rang God. ”See that Marx, its really not working out. All the demons are out on strike, there’s protests and demonstrations everyday with Marx keep urging people to cast off their chains. He’s causing absolute chaos. He was on your list so you need to take him back.”



Eventually God reluctantly agreed that Marx could be admitted to Heaven after all.



After a couple of weeks went by and Satan rang God to see whether everything was working out, but an angel answered the phone. “Hey, Gabriel”, said Satan “can I speak to your boss?”



”Boss?” said the angel



”Yeah, you know, God” said Satan, impatiently



“Oh, him! Ah, no, not any more”, replied Gabriel “No bosses here, we’re all comrades now!”’

‘When Karl Marx arrived at the Pearly Gates, St Peter had a problem: Marx was listed in the Big Book. St Peter gave God a quick call to explain that Marx had turned up and what he should do about it.



”Marx!” said God “How did he get on the list. He’s been bad-mouthing me for years. ‘Opium of the masses’ indeed! Give Old Nick down below a call and see if he’ll take him, he owes me a favour or two.”



St Peter dutifully rang Satan. ”Yeah, go on, we’ll take him.” replied Satan ”Don’t know how he didn’t get sent here in the first place given all the trouble he’s caused.”



So Marx was sent to Hell.



Two weeks later, Satan rang God. ”See that Marx, its really not working out. All the demons are out on strike, there’s protests and demonstrations everyday with Marx keep urging people to cast off their chains. He’s causing absolute chaos. He was on your list so you need to take him back.”



Eventually God reluctantly agreed that Marx could be admitted to Heaven after all.



After a couple of weeks went by and Satan rang God to see whether everything was working out, but an angel answered the phone. “Hey, Gabriel”, said Satan “can I speak to your boss?”



”Boss?” said the angel



”Yeah, you know, God” said Satan, impatiently



“Oh, him! Ah, no, not any more”, replied Gabriel “No bosses here, we’re all comrades now!”’

‘Six days of the week it soils, With its sickening poison for paying a few bills, That’s out of proportion.’

Philip Larkin. Toads.

‘We are told we do not work hard enough nor long enough.’

‘This is the Labour party. We believe in the dignity of work and we believe in the dignity of every worker, which is why I am not afraid to take the big decisions needed to return this country to their interests whether that’s on welfare, immigration, our public services or our public finances…

‘Starmer said the current system was “discouraging people from working”.

The numbers of young people out of work meant “a wasted generation”, he said, with one in eight young people not in education, employment or training. “The people who really need that safety net [are] still not always getting the dignity they deserve.

“That’s unsustainable, it’s indefensible and it is unfair, people feel that in their bones,” he said. “It runs contrary to those deep British values that if you can work, you should. And if you want to work, the government should support you, not stop you.”’

Below is from the September 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘We are told we do not work hard enough nor long enough.

Unemployment, and the evils resulting from it, are said to be due to the fact that the workers will not work. Stagnation in business is supposed to be due to the workers’ dislike for work. This is the piffle continually coming from the master class and their agents. Facts, however, prove the contrary to be true. The more we work, the greater our poverty becomes; the more we work, the greater the wealth of the master class becomes. We look back into the past history of society and see that there was a time when the people were only able to produce sufficient for their subsistence; thus it was essential that all should work.

As recently as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there was no such thing as unemployment through lack of work. Yet, in the days of feudalism, feudal slaves did not work so hard as wage slaves do to-day. Although working less, the people were better off; in recent times, though the workers work harder, poverty and its resultant evils have become greater. If we do not work hard, society would be short of the necessaries of life, ’tis said; but we know that food, clothing, shelter, and luxuries exist in great abundance.

The problem which the capitalist class cannot solve is how to dispose of the whole of the vast amount of goods produced. Factories, warehouses, stores, and shops are crowded with goods, and until these are sold, more will not be wanted. These goods can be bought with money only; money can be obtained by the workers only through working. Goods unsold mean no work for many; no work means no money. This state of affairs is brought about by overproduction, which proves that the workers have been working too much. But the irony of the position is that the workers, who have produced this vast wealth, are denied access to it. Why? Because it belongs to the capitalists. How have the latter gained control of this wealth? By robbing the producers. By this means the capitalist class have become the private owners of the means of living, i.e., factories, land, railways, etc., and they have made laws and raised armed forces to protect their property from the attacks of the workers.

Now, workers, you have the power to alter all this; you have the power to make life well worth living, by gaining control of the means of living. You have this power because the numbers of the working class far exceed those of the capitalist class. Riots, strikes, and bloody revolutions of the past have not given workers control of the means of living. To-day, these methods are still useless. But we have one method which is a sure method—the vote. To be able to use the vote to advantage requires knowledge. Workers, study Socialism, fight for Socialism, and bring about the Socialist Commonwealth which will free you from your chains and give a full and happy life to all.’

E. W. C.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/09/work-1923.html

Appeasement

There’s insistence amongst political

Gangsters that only bellicosity

Can deter a rival’s ferocity;

Be a serpent, not a worm that turns tail,

With the inevitable consequence,

Of aggressors taking encouragement

From any expressed pacific intent.

Munich’s often cited, with an implied sense

It is moral turpitude and weakness

To insist war is a terrible waste,

While any real peace can only be based

On martialled military means to impress.

Alternatives, however realistic,

Tend to send politicians ballistic.

D. A.

The headline in The Guardian reads, ‘Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts.’

Britain’s benefits system is the “worst of all worlds”, with the number of people out of work or training “indefensible and unfair”, the prime minister has said as he prepares for deep cuts to disability payments.

‘Addressing a private meeting of Labour MPs Keir Starmer said he would take tough decisions to cut the bill for working age health and disability benefits, which is expected to hit £70bn by 2030.

The government has already vowed to cut £3bn over the next three years and is expected to announce billions more in savings from the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit.’

The guy is wasted in his role as Prime Minister. He should be a stand-up comedian. He would have his audience rolling in the aisles with mirth.

He’s already got plenty of knock ‘em dead material – different material to the one that wants to send the British working class to go fight and die in Ukraine.

His ‘welfare’ material includes, ‘It runs contrary to those deep British values that if you can work, you should. And if you want to work, the government should support you, not stop you’.

Also, ‘This is the Labour party. We believe in the dignity of work and we believe in the dignity of every worker, which is why I am not afraid to take the big decisions needed to return this country to their interests whether that’s on welfare, immigration, our public services or our public finances’.

Just give us a minutes whilst we wipe the tears fro our eyes and hold our aching from laughter stomachs. Firstly, who on earth still thinks that the Labour Party represents the working class? Did those who voted for it in 2024 think so? Secondly, the ‘deep British values’ are those of the ruling British capitalist class who have no qualms at all about firing workers when economic circumstances change and it’s profits are negatively affected.

Work is a Hobson’s Choice in a capitalist society where the necessities of life can only be obtained through the means of exchange which means selling one’s physical/mental labour power for a wage/salary in order to buy what one needs in order to live, work…repeat, and repeat again and again.‘The government is concerned that the recent growth in the bill for these benefits, which rose by nearly £13bn to £48bn between 2019-20 and 2023-24, is unsustainable.’ Governments within a capitalist system are there to run affairs for the benefit of the national capitalist class as a whole even if the are disagreements about various things between that class.

This threatened attack upon the weak in society is intended to lessen the burden of the capitalist class in its financial support of the state.

Starmer’s warfare will need funding from somewhere too.

How much longer willl the majority allow this all to continue? As Percy Shelley pointed out, we are many, they are few! Better late than never to understand and implement socialism. What’s stopping that?

Note: not suggesting socialism in one country only, socialism has to replace capitalism globally.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/10/starmer-decries-worst-of-all-worlds-benefits-systems-ahead-of-deep-cuts